(PS) Murphy v. Oakland Unified School District ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHANNON O. MURPHY, SR., No. 2:24-cv-02588 DJC AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, who is proceeding in pro se, has filed an application to proceed in forma 19 pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. ECF No. 2. 20 The federal venue statute provides that a civil action “may be brought in (1) a judicial 21 district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the 22 district is located, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions 23 giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action 24 is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in 25 this action, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal 26 jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 27 In this case, the claims arose in Alameda County, California, which is in the Northern 28 District of California. ECF No. 1 at 2. The plaintiff is from Contra Costa County, California, and 1 | defendant is from Alameda County. ECF No. 1-1. Both are located within the Northern District 2 | of California. Therefore, plaintiff's case should have been filed in the United States District 3 || Court for the Northern District of California. In the interest of Justice, a federal court may 4 | transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); 5 || Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974). 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United 7 || States District Court for the Northern District of California. 8 || DATED: September 26, 2024 9 Lhar—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28